Leadership and Organizational Development Principles - Case Study Example

Leading Organizational Change Name Institutional Affiliation Abstract More companies are carrying out changes to align themselves with the changing environment. Both external and internal environment may drive companies to adopt changes that favor their operations. For example, due to the high rate of technology innovativeness, most organizations occasionally review their IT systems to adopt the latest innovation in the market. However, most managers face difficult time while effecting changes in their organizations. They are often met with resistance from their employees who end up derailing the process. Some of the employees refuse to participate in the change process. There are certain best practices that managers or the change teams should follow when implementing changes. Firstly, they need to involve employees from the start. Secondly, they need to educate and communicate with employees regarding the modifications in the organizations. Communication and education are important as it brings all the shareholders to speed with the changes that the management is seeking to make and the reasons behind them. Thirdly, they are supposed to monitor the process and reward cooperating employees and punish those who are a hindrance to the process. This report examines how to lead organization change in the most effective manner. Nokia has used as an example on how not to lead changes in organizations. In bid to catch up with Apple and Google, the appointed a new CEO and brought a number of changes that were not received well by employees. The report analyzes literature review on the subject matter and then provides a conclusion and recommendations on the subject. Leading Organizational Change Introduction Organizations view change as essential for their continuity and success in today's competitive business environment. They carry out changes in their operations to keep up with the changing business environment and competition. The success of the businesses is hinged on their capacity to adopt the demand of both internal and external environment. Factors such changes in social structure, change in technology, shifts in economic conditions often affect the operations of businesses. External forces are due to its general environment which is international, political-legal, and social-cultural dimensions. On the other hand, task environment arises from competition, regulators, suppliers, strategic allies, and customers. Internal forces arise from factors that are derived internally such as culture and organizational strategy. Companies may be forced to modify their strategy or approach to business due to natural, evolutionary, planned, and unplanned changes. It is important to understand change due to their effect on businesses. Of particular concern is how organizations manage it. Managing change is very challenging and complex, and great care should be taken while implementing it. Several challenges emerge when implementing change in organizations (Kotter, & Schlesinger, 2008). The main challenges organizations face when implementing change employee resistance. The resistance presented by employees depends on the way the change is being carried out and the intensity. Change takes various formats. It can be adaptive and proactive or planned and unplanned. Adaptive change focuses on daily organizational transactions (Gilley, Gilley, & McMillan, 2009). For example, a business may modify its main functions to fit environmental protection measures. On proactive change, a business modifies to protect itself from projected threats and potential challenges. Planned changes are usually controllable, group based, consensual, and slow whereas unplanned changes which occur independently and forces the management to respond. Gilley, Gilley, and McMillan (2009) argue that businesses remain competitive when they support and encourage continuous and transformational leadership. They argue that change is often difficult to implement due to the inability of managers to modify their management style. To make matters worse, the available theories and multistep approaches often fail to provide enough implementation guidance to guide companies through change. For this reason, change efforts often suffer a negative fate. Resistance by change agents makes it difficult for organizations to achieve their change objectives. People tend to resist change because of its impact on a firm. Sometimes, the changes may involve acquisitions, expansions or downsizing. Once they learn of the changes to be performed in their firms, employees often choose to continue working or quit. Early adopters often embrace it whereas the traditional steadfast resisters often reject it completely. Case Study of Nokia Organizational Change Nokia is one of the companies whose employees resisted change. The successful mobile company was facing stiff competition from Apple and Google that had to introduce the IOS and Android software respectively that disrupted the smartphone market (Lam, 2013). Nokia’s Symbian OS was inferior to Ios and Android, and the company had to make changes to remain competitive in the market. In 2010, the company appointed a Canadian CEO Stephen Elop. The appointment of Stephen Elop was least expected and marked with the painful transition for the company. Part of the reasons for this was cultural. Notably, Nokia is a Finnish company, and Finnish culture disregards uncertainty. It was the first time for a non-Finnish CEO to be appointed in Nokia’s 145 year history (Lam, 2013). During the change at the company, there were no clear communication and no certainty of job continuity. Many employees felt at risk and protested the changes. They were uncomfortable with the appointment of a non-Finnish CEO which was the first in the history of the company (Lam, 2013). Due to cultural difference, it was difficult for everyone to adjust to the new way of doing business. The new management gave up on old projects fully which was not taken well by employees who had invested their time and effort. For example, it shelved its pairing with Intel’s Linus platform memo and Moblin on their ongoing plans on MeeGo operating system. MeeGo was only a year or two away to the launch (Lam, 2013). Also, this led to the wasting of existing knowledge that the programmers had when the projects were changed. The new projects required that Nokia retrains its staff afresh. The speed at which the changes were carried out was an issue. The appointing of a new CEO, changes in projects, and collaborations with new companies was too fast. All this were done at the expense of employees as their opinion and concerns were overshadowed. Most of the employees felt that MeeGo was a feasible project and could not have been canceled (Lam, 2013). Employee’s contracts were also affected as the focus shifted to Microsoft’s Windows platform. The CEO Stephen Elop blamed employees for the downturn of the company through a memo that was leaked to the press. Elop announced that Nokia would concentrate fully on its association with Microsoft Windows to develop smartphones for the high-end market. Nokia stopped all work on the Symbian operating system. From Nokia’s case study, it is clear that the change was not carried out effectively. Firstly, they opted for a non-Finnish CEO which led to suspicion and mistrust among employees. Secondly, there was the lack of communication from the management to the employees during the entire process. Thirdly, the new management made major decisions without involving employees. For example, they got rid of MeeGo software that was to be launched in a year’s time. Most of the engineers working on the software felt that the project was viable. Employee resistance can be avoided. Particularly, this is possible when effective leadership is applied on a project from the onset. People usually resist change, but good change management can mitigate much of it. Managers can work on capturing and leveraging the passion and positive emotions that sometimes come with change which can put resistance on hold. The most appropriate people to counter resistance in an organization are the senior managers, middle managers, and frontline supervisors. Senior leaders can prevent or quell resistance by convincing their subordinates of the importance of the changes and demonstrating their commitment to the process. Most times, organizations rely on change management team to oversee the change process. However, they ought to understand that project team members, human resources, and organizational development experts are not that good when it comes to preventing revolt among employees. What change management resource can do is assist the resistance managers by giving them with data on where source of the friction. Solving problems helps prevent their build up to unmanageable levels. It is advisable that organizations use a structured change approach from the start of the project. Senior leaders should be engaged as active and visible sponsors of the change. Companies ought also to recruit the support of management including middle managers and frontline supervisors as advocates of the change. More importantly, they should communicate the need for change, the impact the change would have on employees, and the benefits to the employees. One of the ways of avoiding challenges is by employee participation. Most times, political behavior emerges when the interests of one group do not favor the best interests of the whole company. During the process, one camp fighting another often emerges and gets the activity disrupted. Power struggles are as a result of misunderstanding and lack of trust. Most individuals oppose change when they do not understand its outcomes and regard that it might negatively affect their work. Notes that managers ought to identify challenges earlier enough and fix them before they become entrenched. During the change process, leaders have to engage their subordinates. Managers should be involved in the formulation and execution of the change and always listen to their staff (Blazey, 2013). When they are involved, they feel valued as part of the organization and raise their level of effort and commitment. Involving them in the process keeps their motivation and morale higher (Kotter, & Schlesinger, 2008). When they actively take part in decision making, they know that they find it easier to remain focused on their jobs. People tend not to mind change once they get used to the idea and have a chance to deliberate on the direction of the change. However, this does not mean that the management should always follow all the petitions by employees. What is crucial is listening to what they have to say. Management should only consider what is necessary and in line with their plans. For an effective employee engagement, it is advisable that organizations follow a laid out plan. Firstly, the plan needs to involve as many people as possible and as early as possible. The strategy should be developed by the organization's change team, senior managers, and anyone else who will be leading the change (Heathfield, 2016). Secondly, all stakeholders, process owners, and employees who will be affected should not be left out of the process. Thirdly, information should be shared with the rest of the employees so that they do not lag behind in catching up with the learning curve. Fourthly, measurements systems should be put in place to monitor the implementation of the change and action taken to correct any diversions. Employees who positively embrace the change should be rewarded and recognized. Equally, there should be punishment for those who derail the process or simply refuse to cooperate. The implementation of the processes should be carefully evaluated in each stage. Educating and communicating with people beforehand is a sure way of dealing with resistance. Communication enables people to see the need for the logic of change. Managers can involve their employees in one-one discussions where they use evidence from reports to explain to their subordinates why the company needs to embrace change (Blazey, 2013). Specifically, this strategy is ideal in cases where resistance is due to inadequate or wrong information synthesis. Effective communication makes initiators and resisters reach an agreement. In addition, Beatty (2017) explains that change leaders must have a coherent communication study, use appropriate communication channels, ensure middle managers support the change and persist in communication efforts right to the end of the imitative. She says that when managers don’t communicate employees start making up their own information. They challenge the goals that have been set for the change and criticize the change process. Subsequently, rumors become rampant, amplified, and are made worse. People then start believing the rumors and become angry and mistrustful of their leaders. All this can be averted through proper communication. Coaching is also important to the process. Gilley, Gilley, and McMillan (2009) argue that coaching helps improve performance and develops synergistic relations between managers and employees during training, counseling, confronting, and mentoring. More importantly, coaching is usually based on open communication and feedback that are created to maximize workers strengths and minimize weaknesses. The main function of coaching is that of an agent of change. It enables leaders to view situations differently and learn from the mistakes of others. Coaching inspires employees to be their best and remain future oriented. Methodology This report uses literature review. Literature review as an objective, thorough summary and critical analysis of the relevant available research and non- research literature on the topic being investigated (Cronin, Ryan, & Coughlan, 2008). It reviews, critiques and gives a summary of body of literature used and draws conclusions about the topic in question. It looks at relevant studies and knowledge that address leading organizational change. Cronin, Ryan, and Coughlan (2008) explain that this type of review is crucial for sourcing literature on the topic of study, summarizing it, and synthesizing it. A good literature review is that which gathers information on the topic under study from diverse sources. It is well constructed and has a few if any individual biases. There are several advantages of using literature review as a methodology. Firstly, it helps in current assessment of the state of research on a topic. The information obtained from the search can enable a researcher to know what is known about a topic and the gaps to be filled. Secondly, it helps in identification of experts of a particular topic (Ryan & Coughlan, 2008). An author who has written extensively on a topic is more visible or rather stands out from the rest. An individual can, therefore, assume that they are experts on the subject given as their work speaks for them. Equally, a researcher may discover new angles that need further study by analyzing what has already been written on a topic. Moreover, upon completion of the literature review, a researcher would have a solid foundation in the topic researched. Conclusion In general, leaders should ensure that they guide changes in their organizations smoothly as possible. The present day business environment dictates that business should adapt to the changing environment or close their operations. The changes can be brought about by internal and external factors. Internal factors are those that originate from the business such as the need to change culture or management structure. On the other hand, external conditions that can bring changes to an organization includes competition, changes in social structure, political and legal factors, and changes in technology. There are numerous challenges that organizations face when carrying out changes. The most common one is resistance from employees. Normally, most people fear changes as it affects the routine that they are used to. They fear to lose for example the privileges that they enjoyed or being shifted to new departments that would be supervised by new supervisors. However, there can be minimal resistance if the change is carefully planned for and managers adopt best practices. For example, the change team ought to involve senior managers, middle managers and line supervisors in the process. Usually, managers have the power to quell or prevent resistance from employees. It is also important that there is communication between the management and the employees from the onset. Communication helps clear issues raised by staff members and helps the management explain the reasons for carrying out the changes to the employees. Lastly, the change team should involve employees in the design and implementation of the change and always listen to their advice. When they are involved, they feel valued as part of the organization and raise their level of effort and commitment. Recommendations From the above discussion, here are the recommendations for leading change: 1. Companies regularly perform SWOT and PESTEL analysis: It is important that businesses occasionally perform analysis of their business to determine the issues that affect them which can be both internal and external and make appropriate changes. Today’s world is very competitive and it needs that companies change with the changing times. The analyses will help companies be aware of its strengths and weaknesses. At the same time, it will expose them some of the opportunities and threats that it should take advantage of and thwart respectively. The PESTLE analysis will make it aware of their position with regard to external factors that often determine the success of businesses. More importantly, companies should learn to embrace change quickly and effectively. 2. Organizations follow a laid down plan: sticking to a well down plan will ensure that things go on as planned. The plan should be designed by the change team, management team, and employees. Besides, it should ensure employees are involved throughout the process. Also to be included are all shareholders of the companies as they form an important block of any organization. Lastly, it should provide solutions to any issues that might arise such as employee resistance and how to go about it. 3. Employees should be involved during the process: it is clear than when employees are not involved things go wrong with the plan. The involvement of staff in the process should be from the onset. Particularly, this is aimed at removing any doubt on them that can breed the mistrust of the management. Involving employees in the process makes them they feel valued and part of the organization. Basically, this will help raise their level of effort and commitment as well as keep their motivation and morale higher. 4. Education and communication should be given priority: before embarking on any organizational changes, there should be a clear education and communication strategy as they are the backbone of the process. Workers need to be educated on the reasons the changes are being carried out. Throughout the process, there should be constant communication between the change team, management, employees, and shareholders. For effective communication, it is appropriate that companies use different channels to communicate the message. For example, they can pass the messages both verbally, through noticeboards, emails, and publish them on their workgroup social media accounts. References Beatty, C. (2015). Communicating During an Organizational Change. London: Queen's University. Retrieved from http://irc.queensu.ca/sites/default/files/articles/communicating-during-an-organizational-change.pdf Cronin, P., Ryan, F., & Coughlan, M. (2008). Undertaking a Literature Review: A Step-by-Step Approach. British Journal of Nursing, 17(1). Gilley, A., Gilley, J., & McMillan, H. (2009). Organizational change: Motivation, communication, and leadership effectiveness. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 21(4), 75-94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/piq.20039 Heathfield, S. (2016). Employee Involvement: Critical to the Success of Organizational Change. The Balance. Retrieved 10 May 2017, from https://www.thebalance.com/change-management-lessons-about-employee-involvement-1917806 Khan, K. and Rehman, M. (2008). Employees Resistance towards Organizational Change. Ronneby, Sweden: Blekinge Institute of Technology, pp.1-54. Lam, A. (2013). Change Management at Nokia. Warwick: University of Warwick. Retrieved from http://dadablog.net/publications/ChangeManagementAtNokia.pdf Yin R K (2009) Case study research: design and methods. London: Sage Read More